Douglas Carswell: UKIP needs a 'fresh face' as leader
Discussion
Zod said:
don4l said:
If we vote to leave, they will both have won.
UKIP exists to get us out of the EU.
Once we have left the EU, then there won't be any point in having UKIP. I suspect that most of their members will join the Conservative party and bring it back to the centre ground.
i think you are missing the point that UKIP is now an anti-immigration party and that is what most of its voters want it to be.UKIP exists to get us out of the EU.
Once we have left the EU, then there won't be any point in having UKIP. I suspect that most of their members will join the Conservative party and bring it back to the centre ground.
Guybrush said:
Not quite, it's an anti unlimited / uncontrolled immigration party. They would like British citizens to be able to choose who comes to the UK to live, based on required skills to grow the country.
A post which nicely sums up the naivety of much of UKIP thinking.British citizens will not be able to choose who comes to the UK to live. The government or, more particularly, the interpreters of the government's rules (the Civil Service) will do that.
You can of course say "well we'll vote 'em out if the don't do what we want then to do" but of course it ain't as simple as that either. Not everybody is as against immigration as a concept as many on this forum, and not all employers would interpret the phrase "required skills" in the same way. Some of the skills that some employers require are an ability to work for the minimum wage when indigenous British workers wouldn't do the job for the money (crop picking in east Anglia, for example?)
Furthermore, the breaking of a manifesto commitment on immigration (does anybody else remember the "we will reduce it to the tens of thousands" pledge?) doesn't necessarily mean that the government in question actually gets kicked out - in fact they increased their number of seats - because most people have also got things on their minds other than the pet policies of single issue parties.
Of course, after UKIP's stunning count of MPs after the last GE, I am sure their entire parliamentary strength will see to it that Call Me Dave has his feet held to the fire, won't he?
When you turn away from the rhetoric and look at the practicalities of the situation, UKIPs policy is about as credible as those from Wolfie Smith in a sit-com from many years ago, and perhaps those who think that they will happen in the way they expect them to are equally as gullible as his followers.
rs1952 said:
Guybrush said:
Not quite, it's an anti unlimited / uncontrolled immigration party. They would like British citizens to be able to choose who comes to the UK to live, based on required skills to grow the country.
A post which nicely sums up the naivety of much of UKIP thinking.British citizens will not be able to choose who comes to the UK to live. The government or, more particularly, the interpreters of the government's rules (the Civil Service) will do that.
You can of course say "well we'll vote 'em out if the don't do what we want then to do" but of course it ain't as simple as that either. Not everybody is as against immigration as a concept as many on this forum, and not all employers would interpret the phrase "required skills" in the same way. Some of the skills that some employers require are an ability to work for the minimum wage when indigenous British workers wouldn't do the job for the money (crop picking in east Anglia, for example?)
Furthermore, the breaking of a manifesto commitment on immigration (does anybody else remember the "we will reduce it to the tens of thousands" pledge?) doesn't necessarily mean that the government in question actually gets kicked out - in fact they increased their number of seats - because most people have also got things on their minds other than the pet policies of single issue parties.
Of course, after UKIP's stunning count of MPs after the last GE, I am sure their entire parliamentary strength will see to it that Call Me Dave has his feet held to the fire, won't he?
When you turn away from the rhetoric and look at the practicalities of the situation, UKIPs policy is about as credible as those from Wolfie Smith in a sit-com from many years ago, and perhaps those who think that they will happen in the way they expect them to are equally as gullible as his followers.
alfie2244 said:
rs1952 said:
lots of drivel
You have been eating too much sherry trifle...go and have a lay down and your world will stop spinning - eventually.oh and Happy New year old fella
In your case, however...
Perhaps you might like to go through my post, pick out a few points you particularly disagree with, and do the same as s2art?
You might get the hang of this one day - I live in hope for you (not much hope, mind you, but hope nevertheless)
s2art said:
Before the EU/EEC we managed perfectly well with a work permit system. All UKIP (and many others) want is a more sophisticated version of that old system. Just like Australia uses. Why is that not credible?
It is not credible because the policy is too vague - when you get down to the practicalities, it can mean anything you want it to mean.Take my example which, as you know, is not dreamed up, it has been happening in parts of Lincolnshire for years. The locals won't take crop picking work for the money on offer. Simple as that. If the farmers want their crops harvested, they have to import cheap labour to do it, or the stuff rots in the ground. So what are your options?
1. Force the locals to work for lower wages - I can't see that happening somehow.
2. Force the employers to pay more. That idea would go down a bomb with the powerfully-built company directors on here and, if they did pay more, that increase in costs would be reflected in the end price to the customer. Can't see that going down with the great British public, especially if it then becomes cheaper to buy imported food instead. And even UKIP (as far as I know) aren't daft enough to consider trade barriers to stop things like this happening, because they run a strong risk of retaliatory action.
So, within a few months, you could have a situation where one of the "required skills" on UKIPs list is an ability to work for peanuts digging spuds. So much for "the people's choice" over who we let in.
rs1952 said:
alfie2244 said:
rs1952 said:
lots of drivel
You have been eating too much sherry trifle...go and have a lay down and your world will stop spinning - eventually.oh and Happy New year old fella
In your case, however...
Perhaps you might like to go through my post, pick out a few points you particularly disagree with, and do the same as s2art?
You might get the hang of this one day - I live in hope for you (not much hope, mind you, but hope nevertheless)
Or as younger members of my family say "Nah you're allright".
alfie2244 said:
rs1952 said:
alfie2244 said:
rs1952 said:
lots of drivel
You have been eating too much sherry trifle...go and have a lay down and your world will stop spinning - eventually.oh and Happy New year old fella
In your case, however...
Perhaps you might like to go through my post, pick out a few points you particularly disagree with, and do the same as s2art?
You might get the hang of this one day - I live in hope for you (not much hope, mind you, but hope nevertheless)
Or as younger members of my family say "Nah you're allright".
But it still begs the question why did you bother quoting me in the first place, if there is no point?
rs1952 said:
s2art said:
Before the EU/EEC we managed perfectly well with a work permit system. All UKIP (and many others) want is a more sophisticated version of that old system. Just like Australia uses. Why is that not credible?
It is not credible because the policy is too vague - when you get down to the practicalities, it can mean anything you want it to mean.Take my example which, as you know, is not dreamed up, it has been happening in parts of Lincolnshire for years. The locals won't take crop picking work for the money on offer. Simple as that. If the farmers want their crops harvested, they have to import cheap labour to do it, or the stuff rots in the ground. So what are your options?
1. Force the locals to work for lower wages - I can't see that happening somehow.
2. Force the employers to pay more. That idea would go down a bomb with the powerfully-built company directors on here and, if they did pay more, that increase in costs would be reflected in the end price to the customer. Can't see that going down with the great British public, especially if it then becomes cheaper to buy imported food instead. And even UKIP (as far as I know) aren't daft enough to consider trade barriers to stop things like this happening, because they run a strong risk of retaliatory action.
So, within a few months, you could have a situation where one of the "required skills" on UKIPs list is an ability to work for peanuts digging spuds. So much for "the people's choice" over who we let in.
s2art said:
How do you think the old work permit system worked? It allowed for temporary work permits for seasonal agricultural workers, and did so for many years before we joined the EEC. It was never a problem, I dont know why you think it was or is.
Because it lets people in that the policy suggests, only "suggests" of course because it is vague on detail, that it will keep out, such as low skilled workers. Some of the indigenous population of Boston, for example, are voting for UKIP to keep the foreigners out because they don't like the level of changes to their social conditions and social environment that an influx of immigrants has caused. Such people are expecting the tide to be turned.
Your suggestion of temporary work permits would not turn that tide. You would have a lot of very very disappointed people in Boston. As I said, the existing policy is vague enough to mean anything you want it to mean, but the practicalities of implementation will be different.
And whilst we're on the subject, in the good old halcyon days of the pre-EU UK and work permits and choosing who we let in, we chose to let in a lot of West Indian and Asians to do the sort of jobs that the indigenous population didn't want to do.
I am old enough to remember how well they were received by large swathes of that indigenous population, a matter that hasn't really finally sorted itself out some 60 years later
rs1952 said:
alfie2244 said:
rs1952 said:
alfie2244 said:
rs1952 said:
lots of drivel
You have been eating too much sherry trifle...go and have a lay down and your world will stop spinning - eventually.oh and Happy New year old fella
In your case, however...
Perhaps you might like to go through my post, pick out a few points you particularly disagree with, and do the same as s2art?
You might get the hang of this one day - I live in hope for you (not much hope, mind you, but hope nevertheless)
Or as younger members of my family say "Nah you're allright".
But it still begs the question why did you bother quoting me in the first place, if there is no point?
FWIW controlled immigration should not be an arbitrary number but based on the country's needs taking into account suitability / qualifications regardless of nationality, country of origin (inside or out of the EU) colour, religion or any other factor but this is not possible whilst members of the EU. Which IMO is far less discriminatory than any other party's immigration policy.
Happy now grumpy?
Edited by alfie2244 on Friday 1st January 19:46
Scuffers said:
Pretyy clear you have never seen, yet alone filled any immigration work visa paperwork.
I would shut up if i were you as your just making yourself look stupid.
Scuffers, you seem a bit grumpy, you need to remember the better times....Here's your estimate of UKIP seats before the GE :I would shut up if i were you as your just making yourself look stupid.
Scuffers said:
I'll go optimistic, 12+ seats, 25% of the popular votes.
rs1952 said:
s2art said:
How do you think the old work permit system worked? It allowed for temporary work permits for seasonal agricultural workers, and did so for many years before we joined the EEC. It was never a problem, I dont know why you think it was or is.
Because it lets people in that the policy suggests, only "suggests" of course because it is vague on detail, that it will keep out, such as low skilled workers. Some of the indigenous population of Boston, for example, are voting for UKIP to keep the foreigners out because they don't like the level of changes to their social conditions and social environment that an influx of immigrants has caused. Such people are expecting the tide to be turned.
Your suggestion of temporary work permits would not turn that tide. You would have a lot of very very disappointed people in Boston. As I said, the existing policy is vague enough to mean anything you want it to mean, but the practicalities of implementation will be different.
And whilst we're on the subject, in the good old halcyon days of the pre-EU UK and work permits and choosing who we let in, we chose to let in a lot of West Indian and Asians to do the sort of jobs that the indigenous population didn't want to do.
I am old enough to remember how well they were received by large swathes of that indigenous population, a matter that hasn't really finally sorted itself out some 60 years later
BTW the old temporary work permit system is still in place for non-EU workers, in fact the old system is still in place in its entirety for non-EU workers, it does not have to be re-implemented, merely souped up to Aussie standards and applied without discrimination in favour of EU workers.
See; http://www.workpermit.com/uk/saws.htm
s2art said:
Of course temporary work permits are not the only part of the solution, take a look at the Aussie system which would be the solution when adapted to our requirements.
BTW the old temporary work permit system is still in place for non-EU workers, in fact the old system is still in place in its entirety for non-EU workers, it does not have to be re-implemented, merely souped up to Aussie standards and applied without discrimination in favour of EU workers.
See; http://www.workpermit.com/uk/saws.htm
Either you are missing my point or I am missing yours. I prefer to think the former BTW the old temporary work permit system is still in place for non-EU workers, in fact the old system is still in place in its entirety for non-EU workers, it does not have to be re-implemented, merely souped up to Aussie standards and applied without discrimination in favour of EU workers.
See; http://www.workpermit.com/uk/saws.htm
To amplify my point as bullet points for clarity, and using Boston again as the example:
1. The local population want to see a reduction in immigrants in the area
2. At the moment most of those immigrants come from the EU
3. They are low skilled workers, working in agriculture
4. They come mainly from Poland and other eastern EU countries
5. The local agricultural industry cannot function effectively without them
6. If the EU unskilled labour "tap" is turned off, low skilled labour will still be needed
7. If the labour doesn't come from the EU, it will have to be imported from somewhere else
8. Boston still has the immigrants that Boston doesn't want
Another point to bear in mind in all this is that many of our existing EU migrants are already temporary, as can be seen by a cursory glance at flight timetables from many UK regional airports to eastern Europe. Many come here to maker some money and then go home, in much the same way as somebody with a temporary work permit would.
"Immigration" is not what it was in the 50s, from which time we have all seen the newsreels of them getting off the boat at Southampton with a suitcase in their hand. That was a one-way trip and they knew it when they set off. These days some of the buggers go home at weekends courtesy of Easyjet and Ryanair.
So the whole matter can be marketed (or spun) however you like. But, at the end of the day the practicalities dictate that if the UK needs low-skilled immigrants to do the jobs that low skilled UK residents will not do, they will have to come from somewhere, It doesn't really matter where they come from, they will still come.
And the people of Boston will be just as cheesed off about an influx of immigrants as they are now, UKIP immigration policy or no UKIP immigration policy.
rs1952 said:
s2art said:
Of course temporary work permits are not the only part of the solution, take a look at the Aussie system which would be the solution when adapted to our requirements.
BTW the old temporary work permit system is still in place for non-EU workers, in fact the old system is still in place in its entirety for non-EU workers, it does not have to be re-implemented, merely souped up to Aussie standards and applied without discrimination in favour of EU workers.
See; http://www.workpermit.com/uk/saws.htm
Either you are missing my point or I am missing yours. I prefer to think the former BTW the old temporary work permit system is still in place for non-EU workers, in fact the old system is still in place in its entirety for non-EU workers, it does not have to be re-implemented, merely souped up to Aussie standards and applied without discrimination in favour of EU workers.
See; http://www.workpermit.com/uk/saws.htm
To amplify my point as bullet points for clarity, and using Boston again as the example:
1. The local population want to see a reduction in immigrants in the area
2. At the moment most of those immigrants come from the EU
3. They are low skilled workers, working in agriculture
4. They come mainly from Poland and other eastern EU countries
5. The local agricultural industry cannot function effectively without them
6. If the EU unskilled labour "tap" is turned off, low skilled labour will still be needed
7. If the labour doesn't come from the EU, it will have to be imported from somewhere else
8. Boston still has the immigrants that Boston doesn't want
Another point to bear in mind in all this is that many of our existing EU migrants are already temporary, as can be seen by a cursory glance at flight timetables from many UK regional airports to eastern Europe. Many come here to maker some money and then go home, in much the same way as somebody with a temporary work permit would.
"Immigration" is not what it was in the 50s, from which time we have all seen the newsreels of them getting off the boat at Southampton with a suitcase in their hand. That was a one-way trip and they knew it when they set off. These days some of the buggers go home at weekends courtesy of Easyjet and Ryanair.
So the whole matter can be marketed (or spun) however you like. But, at the end of the day the practicalities dictate that if the UK needs low-skilled immigrants to do the jobs that low skilled UK residents will not do, they will have to come from somewhere, It doesn't really matter where they come from, they will still come.
And the people of Boston will be just as cheesed off about an influx of immigrants as they are now, UKIP immigration policy or no UKIP immigration policy.
If anyone is getting swamped by the arguments against a clearcut controlled immigration system as suggested by UKIP, just take a look at Australia's system (or New Zealand's which is similar). All we should be able to do is choose mainly according to skills shortage (criteria can be adjusted as required). Getting more involved with the EU (getting deeper under control of the unelected 'government') will not be in our best interests - forget voting for your own government; they'll become a satellite / just another bureaucratic layer under the EU.
rs1952 said:
A post which nicely sums up the naivety of much of UKIP thinking.
British citizens will not be able to choose who comes to the UK to live. The government or, more particularly, the interpreters of the government's rules (the Civil Service) will do that.
You can of course say "well we'll vote 'em out if the don't do what we want then to do" but of course it ain't as simple as that either. ...
Life rarely is simple. But at least we'd have the choice on an ongoing basis which we simply do not now.British citizens will not be able to choose who comes to the UK to live. The government or, more particularly, the interpreters of the government's rules (the Civil Service) will do that.
You can of course say "well we'll vote 'em out if the don't do what we want then to do" but of course it ain't as simple as that either. ...
Further, staying in the EU will erode that choice further as the old "ever closer union" steps up a gear.
s2art said:
Before the EU/EEC we managed perfectly well with a work permit system. All UKIP (and many others) want is a more sophisticated version of that old system. Just like Australia uses. Why is that not credible?
Because a mirror reading spittle flecked lefty or two says it won't !!! Sadly the current system suits the bone idle and big business alike , one has a huge voting block and the other infuence in government , If you think its bad now wait until the living wage comes in , ,
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff